The philosophy of cricket.
That means I say controversial things that attempts to challenge the dominant paradigms in current cricket thinking. Yes. The paradigms.
I also try to say nice things about spinners.

Thursday, July 05, 2007

Aggers: Everything is rubbish

Is it just me, or is Jonathan Agnew aged about forty years in the last few months? Normally, he is fairly positive and generally agreeable to listen to/read. In his latest comments he has a whinge about 50-over cricket. It’s boring, he says.

In commenting on the recent West Indies vs. England ODI he says it was “disappointing”, “drained of excitement” and “forgettable”. Continuing the moan he says

“Yet again, a 50-over match petered out long before the end.”

Now, I have been to a few test matches in my day. Their endings can be long, drawn-out affairs. But this does not detract from their wonderfulness. For some reason, Agnew is taking aim against the 50-over format, and, by extension, all forms of limited-overs cricket.

Why? Because the quality of the cricket is obviously inferior, and therefore we only look to an exciting climax to derive some satisfaction from an otherwise feeble relation to time-limited games. This is just rubbish.

It was a good match. The West Indies fought hard and batted, for the first time on this tour, with a sensible strategy. From a tricky position, they ground out a partnership and developed their innings into a formidable total. The pressure was on England and although their innings obviously misfired, it had some spark.

This was an enjoyable cricket game in itself. I watch cricket for the first few hours, not the last thirty minutes. Old fuddy-duddies: they get everywhere these days. Not like in my day.